13 E.D. Programs Axed on Budget Chopping Block

Eliminating funding for 13 Education Department programs this fiscal
year was a political success that freed up $77 million--and is part of
a trend that is likely to continue, one of the department's top budget
officials says.

"It is very hard to improve program management when you have all of
these categorical programs running around," said Sally H. Christensen,
the director of the department's budget service and deputy assistant
secretary for management and budget.

Twelve of the 13 programs that received no appropriations for 1995
were among 37 the Clinton Administration did not want funded.

Ms. Christensen said programs landed on the chopping block because
they duplicate other efforts, are outdated, or focus on areas that are
not an appropriate federal responsibility.

Many of the programs the Administration proposed to defund were
cited as wasteful or outdated in the report on the Education Department
issued by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review--as
department officials often noted.

John M. Kamensky, the deputy director of the N.P.R, said reviews of
other agencies did not, as a rule, recommend cuts.

But education programs, he said, were "crying out, saying these are
really outdated and in need of change."

Erasing all 34 programs identified by the N.P.R.--nine of which were
among those receiving no funding this year--would save about $515
million between 1995 and 1999, its report estimates.

Cutting 13 programs in one year is a lot by federal standards, Ms.
Christensen pointed out.

17 Programs Added

Still, the Education Department actually saw a net gain because
Congress added $188.7 million in funding for 17 new programs to the
department's $27.4 billion budget, including $100 million for a
school-facilities-construction program.

And elimination from the budget did not necessarily mean death. For
example, while the Blue Ribbon Schools program was not included in the
budget as a separate line item, the Administration had promised to
continue it with discretionary money.

And two territorial-assistance programs that received no funding
were nonetheless reauthorized as part of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, making future funding possible.

Some programs were continued even though the Administration mustered
evidence of inefficiency or other problems.

For example, a Congressional report found that the number of
Ellender fellowships, administered by the Close-Up Foundation to
finance visits to Washington for low-income students, actually
decreased as federal funding increased. It also found that more of the
fellowships were going to teachers than students.

Nonetheless, the program received $4.2 million this year and was
reauthorized in the E.S.E.A.

Perennial Targets

Some education advocates viewed it as an unpleasant surprise when
the Democratic Administration targeted programs that had regularly
showed up on Republican hit lists in earlier years.

"If it was also on the list for Presidents Reagan and Bush, was
there a clear-cut strategy or was it just habit?" asked Susan Frost,
the executive director of the Committee for Education Funding.

The lobbyists were particularly surprised that the Administration
proposed eliminating popular programs like subsidized Perkins student
loans and State Student Incentive Grants, which match state student-aid
funding.

In appropriating $221 million for these programs this year, Congress
rejected the argument that an expanding direct-lending program--soon to
include income-contingent repayment--would reduce the need for such
grants.

"With grants, you put low-income students not on an even playing
field, but closer to an equal opportunity as their middle-income
counterparts," Ms. Frost said, predicting that 15 states would cut
their student grants without the matching funds.

Carol C. Henderson, the executive director for the American Library
Association's Washington office, said it was surprising that the
Administration proposed eliminating library programs that would seem to
jibe with its own priorities.

"We were disappointed because this is exactly the kind of activity
that does fit into the Administration's information-superhighway
initiative," she said.

Six library programs that received $43 million in fiscal 1994 were
targeted for the ax. Four survived; two did not.

Ms. Christensen declined to predict which programs the
Administration would propose no funding for in its fiscal 1996 budget,
which is due in early February. But she said the Administration would
propose consolidating some duplicative programs.

"You'll see drastic changes in programs--that's the real impact,
targeting more money at reforms and really going after results," Ms.
Christensen said.

But education lobbyists pointed out that the significance of the
Administration's proposed cuts pales in comparison with a funding cap
that fixes the roughly $542 billion pot available for federal
discretionary spending. Last year, defense programs captured $255.4
billion of that pot, Ms. Frost noted.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.